These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Winter] Existing destroyer rebalancing

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lavitakus Bromier
WTF Bunnies
#401 - 2012-10-06 15:43:12 UTC
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Major Killz wrote:
We'll see what happens. The most used or effective destroyer's will most likely be Minmatar and Caldari, with some Amarr. However, the Coercer can be kited in overheated warp disruptor range by a Thrasher, Comorant and Catalyst NOW. The alpha from a art-Thrasher is still very powerful. I don't fear the Catalyst now and I won't after these proposed changes.


Most of these ships will still be the pray of certain assault frigates and each other.


Coercer will be king.


+1
Major Killz
inglorious bastards.
#402 - 2012-10-06 16:16:10 UTC
Lavitakus Bromier wrote:
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Major Killz wrote:
We'll see what happens. The most used or effective destroyer's will most likely be Minmatar and Caldari, with some Amarr. However, the Coercer can be kited in overheated warp disruptor range by a Thrasher, Comorant and Catalyst NOW. The alpha from a art-Thrasher is still very powerful. I don't fear the Catalyst now and I won't after these proposed changes.


Most of these ships will still be the pray of certain assault frigates and each other.


Coercer will be king.


+1



Kinda like a Slicer > Harpy, right? Yes indeed.

Don't get me wrong. I've flown and been in love with Coercer's since early 2008, but I'm not delusional. I've been defeated in a Coercer by some who know how to exploit a Coercer's weaknesses and I've done so myself to others.

Now! In null (0.0) there will be r3t@rds esploded to them like they are now but more so. In factional warfare, because of the widespread use of tracking disruptors; a Coercer losses it's effectiveness and I only use a Coercer almost exclusively against large groups of frigates.

With a rail-Harpy or art-Jaguar I have no issues. I just switch to long range ammunition and watch them try to bring my range down from 70,000m (70km). Same can be said with art-Thrasher and rail-Cormorant as they are now. All of the aforementioned use @tleast 1 stasis webifier.

- Boss mode erry day = / Always adapting to the eviroment like a BEAST = /

[u]Ich bin ein Pirat ！[/u]
The VC's
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#403 - 2012-10-06 16:18:53 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
One does not kite in a rail Catalyst. One charges.


+1

It's a strafer, not a kiter. A long point and good falloff means you keep your tackle and damage while slingshoting around.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#404 - 2012-10-06 16:41:41 UTC
Do not underestimate the Beam Coercer. It will be able to lock and hit out to 60km. It has instant ammo swap ability and it's tracking is roughly 30% better then the other rail and artillery platforms.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#405 - 2012-10-06 17:41:48 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
PS : optimal + falloff bonuses allow the catalyst for both railguns or blasters fit. Optimal and falloff also benefit to both of them, allowing railgun to extend range without downgrading ammo, and blasters to "kite" AC ships with void ammo.


The role bonus only gives 3.5km extra falloff to a Catalyst with 150mm rails, and the benefit of optimal bonuses to blasters is typically measured in metres rather than kilometres. These are marginal benefits, and to all practical purposes the hull will always be effectively losing a bonus except in one-in-a-thousand fringe cases.

None of the other three existing destroyer hulls are hamstrung in this way and there's no reason why the Catalyst should be.


One TE and the falloff for that 150mm II is 14.6 km. The falloff for an unbonused 150 is 7.5km or 9.875km with a TE. 15.3km optimal + 14.6 falloff on a small rail for antimatter is more then significant.

As for blasters - TE again for the win. And a blaster cat pimp slaps an AC Thrasher so hard in terms of damage projection it isn't even funny.
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#406 - 2012-10-06 19:41:34 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
PS : optimal + falloff bonuses allow the catalyst for both railguns or blasters fit. Optimal and falloff also benefit to both of them, allowing railgun to extend range without downgrading ammo, and blasters to "kite" AC ships with void ammo.


The role bonus only gives 3.5km extra falloff to a Catalyst with 150mm rails, and the benefit of optimal bonuses to blasters is typically measured in metres rather than kilometres. These are marginal benefits, and to all practical purposes the hull will always be effectively losing a bonus except in one-in-a-thousand fringe cases.

None of the other three existing destroyer hulls are hamstrung in this way and there's no reason why the Catalyst should be.


One TE and the falloff for that 150mm II is 14.6 km. The falloff for an unbonused 150 is 7.5km or 9.875km with a TE.

Or you could use a Cormorant, which isn't hamstrung with split-range bonuses and so all that falloff is still optimal. And which, you know, can fit a tracking enhancer too.

Quote:
As for blasters - TE again for the win. And a blaster cat pimp slaps an AC Thrasher so hard in terms of damage projection it isn't even funny.

Are you somehow reading into my post that if catalysts had a decent set of non-clashing bonuses they would also be banned from using tracking enhancers? "Its ok for the catalyst to have a stupid set of bonuses because you can mitigate the stupidity a little by using a precious lowslot for a tracking enhancer" isn't exactly a compelling argument.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#407 - 2012-10-06 20:43:21 UTC
I'll tell all the tornado pilots fitting arty that they're doing it wrong then. I'll also stop using my Harpy with 9.6km optimal on Null because obviously optimal bonuses don't help blasters at all. Roll
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#408 - 2012-10-06 20:58:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Garviel Tarrant
Major Killz wrote:
Lavitakus Bromier wrote:
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Major Killz wrote:
We'll see what happens. The most used or effective destroyer's will most likely be Minmatar and Caldari, with some Amarr. However, the Coercer can be kited in overheated warp disruptor range by a Thrasher, Comorant and Catalyst NOW. The alpha from a art-Thrasher is still very powerful. I don't fear the Catalyst now and I won't after these proposed changes.


Most of these ships will still be the pray of certain assault frigates and each other.


Coercer will be king.


+1



Kinda like a Slicer > Harpy, right? Yes indeed.

Don't get me wrong. I've flown and been in love with Coercer's since early 2008, but I'm not delusional. I've been defeated in a Coercer by some who know how to exploit a Coercer's weaknesses and I've done so myself to others.

Now! In null (0.0) there will be r3t@rds esploded to them like they are now but more so. In factional warfare, because of the widespread use of tracking disruptors; a Coercer losses it's effectiveness and I only use a Coercer almost exclusively against large groups of frigates.

With a rail-Harpy or art-Jaguar I have no issues. I just switch to long range ammunition and watch them try to bring my range down from 70,000m (70km). Same can be said with art-Thrasher and rail-Cormorant as they are now. All of the aforementioned use @tleast 1 stasis webifier.

- Boss mode erry day = / Always adapting to the eviroment like a BEAST = /


No kind of like it will kill anything that gets within 20km of it with pulse

And kill anything that comes within 40 with beams.

It will be hilariously powerful.

(The new Caldari dessie will be better though)

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Randy Wray
Warcrows
THE OLD SCHOOL
#409 - 2012-10-06 22:14:49 UTC
I really dont see the logic behind giving the cormorant a second low, how is it going to benefit from it?

The ship is pretty much built around rails, the rail fitting needs midslots for webs if youre a middle range soloer or sensor boosters and tracking computers if youre long range fit.

Now both a sebo and a TC can be replaced by a lowslot module, but not webs. Dual web rail corm is a very viable fit and as a caldari ship it needs all the mids it can get.

Compare the post-change corm to a thrasher, lets say we fit blasters, a rocket launcher, MSE, scram and mwd in mids(generic lows) The corm will be slower, have worse damage projection, similar dps and similar tank. It would just get slaughtered by a thrasher in the approach since the thrasher can start dealing damage from outside scram range even with EMP, the corm will have to load null to get out to similar range and if it does the thrasher can just go up close and then the corm will have to choose between dealing worse dps up close or losing 5 seconds of damage application to reload close range ammo.
This is just against the thrasher, the catalyst will just roflstomp a blaster corm and a post-change coercer would be even worse.
A rail fit with 3 mids isnt viable because any frig will just get under your tracking, I know this because even if you web your target 75mm railguns have difficulty tracking a frigate orbiting at 500

Solo Pvper in all areas of space including wormhole space. Check out my youtube channel @ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCd6M3xV43Af-3E1ds0tTyew/feed for mostly small scale pvp in lowsec/nullsec

twitch.tv/randywray
Ark Anhammar
GO' R0V
Pandemic Horde
#410 - 2012-10-06 23:09:06 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
However, by doing so we are removing its tiny dronebay to make its role more focused on turrets and keep a clear distinction with the new Gallente drone destroyer.

Oh thank you SO much CCP Ytterbium!! This is an excellent first step toward clearly-defined (and bonused) Gallente ships!

Now, let's apply this same logic across the board and start giving Gallente solely-bonused drone boats (or maybe tank+drones) OR solely-bonused Gunboats and stop all that split dps, split damage garbage. Nobody likes split dps, because the ship can't shine at one thing when it's trying to do two things at once.

Ships like the Myrmidon, having a tank+drone bonus allows is to fit whatever appropriate turret weapon system we need, and this affords us much more flexibility in both fittings and turret-damage application (drone damage is always gonna be Therm or Expl, since Caldari and Amarr drones are broken)...

Great job, though! I'm so excited to see design iteration in this direction!
Major Killz
inglorious bastards.
#411 - 2012-10-07 00:14:49 UTC
Yes beam Coercer Roll All powerfull and p overpowered... I'll leave that notion to those who've used a beam-Coercer solo. However, its uses are more for fleets, but then Cormorant and even a Catalyst will be and is currently superior with long range turrets = /

All powerfull indeed.

Even though the propose Coercer has 1 less low slot. Which means etheir less damage or range compared to what it is now. You know! A well deserved damage NERF since it's receiving a mid slot.

However, If the Coercer still had all its current slots and was given an extra mid slot it would be overpowered, but CCP didn't. Infact I was saying as much long ago, that if CCP did give a Coercer a mid slot. They would have to NERF it's damage or else OP.

If you look @ what CCP is proposing to do with a Catalyst. Using railguns a Catalyst will out damage and out range any Coercer setup. It's somewhat the same story with a Cormorant. Which will be on par damage wise to all Coercer setups.


CCP brought everthing else up to a Thrasher or Coercer level, in terms of damage or more with regard to the Catalyst.

[u]Ich bin ein Pirat ！[/u]
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings
#412 - 2012-10-07 00:30:41 UTC
Why is the thrasher getting a speed nerf? Did CCP hear that people were armor-tanking them and decide this was unacceptable?
Luc Chastot
#413 - 2012-10-07 01:50:54 UTC
Very interesting changes. Blasters don't benefit much from a bonus to optimal range, but I guess the agility buff will help, more so considering I now have 1 (or 2, haven't run the numbers yet) free rig slot to increase range even more. This opens new posibilities for the Cat, which is something I approve of.

Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.

Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#414 - 2012-10-07 06:40:05 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
I'll tell all the tornado pilots fitting arty that they're doing it wrong then. I'll also stop using my Harpy with 9.6km optimal on Null because obviously optimal bonuses don't help blasters at all. Roll

Please don't tell me you're seriously arguing that the Tornado wouldn't be a superior artillery platform if it had an optimal bonus, or the blaster Harpy wouldn't work better with falloff.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Rayner Vanguard
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#415 - 2012-10-07 09:38:50 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
You wish is my command Pirate




  • Coercer: mass decreased from 1665000 to 1650000, agility increased from 2.75 to 2.77 to keep close align time
  • Cormorant: mass decreased from 1892000 to 1700000, agility increased from 2.5 to 2.78 to keep close align time
  • Catalyst: mass decreased from 1761000 to 1550000, agility increased from 2.45 to 2.76 to keep close align time
  • Thrasher: mass increased from 1542000 to 1600000, agility decreased from 2.96 to 2.8 to keep close align time


Everything looks good except for the speed
Remember that Coercer and Catalyst is using armor tank, which is making them slower

Both of them already have slower speed than the shield destroyer, then armor tank them will make them more difficult
Also, with less shield and less mid, we can't shield tank it
JamesCLK
#416 - 2012-10-07 09:56:21 UTC
CCP Ytterbium, I love you!
Now give ALL the Gallente boats ship mass love (especially the Thorax) <3

-- -.-- / -.-. .-.. --- -. . / .. ... / - --- --- / . -..- .--. . -. ... .. ...- . / - --- / ..- -. -.. --- -.-. -.- / ... - --- .--. / .--. .-.. . .- ... . / ... . -. -.. / .... . .-.. .--. / ... - --- .--.
The VC's
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#417 - 2012-10-07 11:21:44 UTC
Major Killz wrote:
Even though the propose Coercer has 1 less low slot. Which means etheir less damage or range compared to what it is now. You know! A well deserved damage NERF since it's receiving a mid slot.


Adding a mid for a low now means I lose a heatsink. I'd consider that a damage nerf. But then again, I'm one of these odd sorts that thinks the current 1 mid / 4 low Coercer is fineTwisted
Major Killz
inglorious bastards.
#418 - 2012-10-07 12:01:13 UTC
The VC's wrote:
Major Killz wrote:
Even though the propose Coercer has 1 less low slot. Which means etheir less damage or range compared to what it is now. You know! A well deserved damage NERF since it's receiving a mid slot.


Adding a mid for a low now means I lose a heatsink. I'd consider that a damage nerf. But then again, I'm one of these odd sorts that thinks the current 1 mid / 4 low Coercer is fineTwisted



I too am and have always been a fan of the current Coercer and even 1 mid slot Retribution.

[u]Ich bin ein Pirat ！[/u]
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#419 - 2012-10-07 12:12:49 UTC
Major Killz wrote:
The VC's wrote:
Major Killz wrote:
Even though the propose Coercer has 1 less low slot. Which means etheir less damage or range compared to what it is now. You know! A well deserved damage NERF since it's receiving a mid slot.


Adding a mid for a low now means I lose a heatsink. I'd consider that a damage nerf. But then again, I'm one of these odd sorts that thinks the current 1 mid / 4 low Coercer is fineTwisted

I too am and have always been a fan of the current Coercer and even 1 mid slot Retribution.

I'll be happy to join this enlightened show of hands.

By the by, losing a low is not merely the loss of a HS but the potential for tank, tracking, speed, grid/cpu, ECCM .. you name it. Taking a low from a midslot slot deficient race such as Amarr is like making all Minmatar ships have split weapon bonuses (read: cripples most if not all of them).

SHORTER!!: Highslot to midslot, not lowslot to midslot. Losing 12.5% dps is a whole lot more palpable than losing ~25% and/or all the other options a low represents for Amarr.
The VC's
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#420 - 2012-10-07 12:45:46 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Highslot to midslot, not lowslot to midslot. Losing 12.5% dps is a whole lot more palpable than losing ~25% and/or all the other options a low represents for Amarr.


My feelings exactly. But we'll be out-whined on that one for sure. Even with the new version I'l probably fit a Sebo or a Mse in the mid.

My memoirs will be entitled "Bugger, I trained Amarr! or how I learned to love the lowslot and win."